I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, I just like the idea of him being the Republican nominee. I look forward to hearing Obama losing his cool and saying things like "what the fuck?" and "holy shit!" on national tv and have everyone in America say "I was thinking the same thing."

I think you cut right to the point there. Obama is to Ron Paul as Ron Paul was to Bruno.

I agree with his comment about the TSA workers and their looks. The trigger for the creation of the TSA and the extensive searches were Arab terrorists, 9/11, the shoe bomber, etc.; its therefore ironic that a greater percentage of middle easterners work for the TSA than exist in American society overall, and these same folks are the ones searching the traditional American majority population while we refuse to racially profile (like, for example, what the Israelis do to every Palestinian who walks into David Ben Gurion airport).

This shows a stunning level of ignorance about a subject that clearly has you quite worked up.

The shoe bomber wasn't a Middle Easterner. Nor for that matter was the underwear bomber or the guy who shot up the recruiting center in Kansan, nor were a host of other wannabe Jihadis.

In fact, John Walker Lindh IIRC was blonde-haired and blue-eyed as was Pierre Robert, the infamous "blue-eyed Amir".

Moreover, Middle Easterners aren't a "race" and the idea that you can tell who is an who isn't by looking at them is simply absurd to anyone who's ever visited there.

For example, most people in Syria and Lebanon, look as "white" as people in Europe.

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Handwave this away however you want, nobody's going to believe you or care. He's done. Forever.

C'mon, Lew Rockwell or someone probably wrote the book and Ron Paul never realized there were offending passages in it. Besides, that's ancient history and did you realize the Austrian economists have predicted all of our economic troubles and the government has too much power and Ron Paul is really really sincere.

"Though it describes itself as "non-partisan",[7] AAPS is generally recognized as politically conservative.[6][8][9][10] According to Mother Jones, "despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD."[10]

The organization opposes mandatory vaccination,[11] universal health care[12] and government intervention in healthcare.[10][13] The AAPS has characterized the effects of the Social Security Act of 1965, which established Medicare and Medicaid, as "evil" and "immoral",[14] and encouraged member physicians to boycott Medicare and Medicaid.[15] AAPS argues that individuals should purchase medical care directly from doctors, and that there is no right to medical care.[16] The organization requires its members to sign a "declaration of independence" pledging that they will not work with Medicare, Medicaid, or even private insurance companies.[10]"

And that's just for starters. Articles/commentaries in the AAPS journal have among other things claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, denied human activity's role in global warming, claimed that abortion causes breast cancer, that ""humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution" and that ""anchor babies" were launching a "stealthy assault on [American] medicine" (including the false claim that illegal aliens have sparked a recent leprosy epidemic in the U.S).

Bottom line - the AAPS is a bunch of raving libertarian loons. Ron Paul's association with them provides abundant fuel for his opponents.*

*the saner ones, anyway. Michele Bachmann is probably applying to AAPS as an auxiliary member as we speak.

[...] ironic that a greater percentage of middle easterners work for the TSA than exist in American society overall, and these same folks are the ones searching the traditional American majority population while we refuse to racially profile
[...]
So clearly there is provocation; retaliation or a 'race war' has likely only not been a result due to white's incredible unwillingness to recognize group interests even when every possible faction around them does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchanan

[...] there is a huge problem, and that this order-of-magnitude-plus criminality, especially in violent crime, is unique to blacks and blacks alone.
[...] blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than other races - and this is true across all countries and times, and whether blacks are a minority or a majority or relatively rich or poor

C'mon, Lew Rockwell or someone probably wrote the book and Ron Paul never realized there were offending passages in it. Besides, that's ancient history and did you realize the Austrian economists have predicted all of our economic troubles and the government has too much power and Ron Paul is really really sincere.

He's gonna win, wait and see.

Yes, but win WHAT? Candidate with the most delusional fanbase? *throws confetti*

You don't see a problem with him blaming the victims of sexual harassment? The boss gropes somebody in the copy room and instead of him getting in trouble for what he did they should just quit their job? It's partially their fault?

Yeah, voters are going to love that.

edit: Wait, was your reply supposed to be sarcastic? I can't even tell anymore.

[QUOTE=Terraplane;14619969]You don't see a problem with him blaming the victims of sexual harassment? The boss gropes somebody in the copy room and instead of him getting in trouble for what he did they should just quit their job? It's partially their fault?
QUOTE]

Where does he say the boss shouldn't get in trouble? He says civil rights laws are not needed to handle this, which is hardly a surprising position coming from him. This is just politically correct sensationalism.

Where does he say the boss shouldn't get in trouble? He says civil rights laws are not needed to handle this, which is hardly a surprising position coming from him. This is just politically correct sensationalism.

I should have said 'instead of just him getting in trouble..." I didn't mean to imply that he meant the harasser shouldn't be punished. But he does blame the victim. If somebody is the victim of sexual harassment, it's not their fault. They shouldn't have to lose their job because they didn't do anything wrong. There is no shared blame. There's nothing sensational about that idea.

Where does he say the boss shouldn't get in trouble? He says civil rights laws are not needed to handle this, which is hardly a surprising position coming from him. This is just politically correct sensationalism.

Then what laws should be used to administer justice to the employer, if not civil rights laws?

I should have said 'instead of just him getting in trouble..." I didn't mean to imply that he meant the harasser shouldn't be punished. But he does blame the victim. If somebody is the victim of sexual harassment, it's not their fault. They shouldn't have to lose their job because they didn't do anything wrong. There is no shared blame. There's nothing sensational about that idea.

Sexual assault is against the law.

If an employee does not like the conditions of his or her work environment, he or she should either express grievances with his or her superior(one not involved with the harassment) or find different employment. Just like any other problem with working conditions.

The quote is taken out of context but, being familiar with the philosophy of Dr Paul, I would guess he was making the case for the m****t ( i know its a dirty word around here) discouraging companies from condoning his type of behavior.

current conservative republican economic beliefs are a lot closer to RP's austrian approach than to what everyone knows is the bus(h)iness as usual approach of mitt, ginger, and perry. and it sounds as if young republicans and independents are responding to his anti-militarism. also, he's a texan, and the texas born presidents since ike have all been wildly successful, so he's got a chance...
"fool me once...shame on...shame on you...if fooled, you can't get fooled again." W said exactly what i feel about obama and all the rest.

I didn't find much honest about claims that many people who are planning to vote for Obama won't acknowledge that Paul says some good things. He does. He also says incredibly bad things. The article claims to be nuanced and yet starts from a position of assuming everyone is too partisan... all except the author, of course.

That "fairly honest" assessment of Ron Paul and Obama that Will posted has one revelatory piece of imagery, though it applies far more to Paul enthusiasts than to Obama supporters.

What the news media and opposition have been doing in recent days is holding up a mirror to Ron Paul - but both he and his devotees are busily ignoring the ugliness that they see.

Misogny, racism, willingness to torpedo decades of progress in environmental protection and public health - all that ugliness can be excused or denied because they find Ron Paul's isolationism and economic theories appealing.

It doesn't surprise me that some alleged progressives might be tempted by Ron's stance against any and all foreign involvements. But they're forgetting that with Ron, you get the whole package, and it's not a pretty one.

..
Misogny, racism, willingness to torpedo decades of progress in environmental protection and public health - all that ugliness can be excused or denied because they find Ron Paul's isolationism and economic theories appealing....

This is true to the extent that libertarianism can be considered an economic theory. I think many of them really hate the idea of the government "intruding" into anything, and they comfort themselves with the crazy idea that a free market will solve all the problems. Maybe this is a kind of chicken and egg question.

That "fairly honest" assessment of Ron Paul and Obama that Will posted has one revelatory piece of imagery, though it applies far more to Paul enthusiasts than to Obama supporters.

What the news media and opposition have been doing in recent days is holding up a mirror to Ron Paul - but both he and his devotees are busily ignoring the ugliness that they see.

Misogny, racism, willingness to torpedo decades of progress in environmental protection and public health - all that ugliness can be excused or denied because they find Ron Paul's isolationism and economic theories appealing.

It doesn't surprise me that some alleged progressives might be tempted by Ron's stance against any and all foreign involvements. But they're forgetting that with Ron, you get the whole package, and it's not a pretty one.

Same thing could be said about Obama. You're getting the whole package and it's not a pretty one.

I didn't find much honest about claims that many people who are planning to vote for Obama won't acknowledge that Paul says some good things.

Have you followed this thread at all? How about other Ron Paul threads on this forum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So if the harassment doesn't rise to the level of assault, the victim's only recourse is to quit?

Lets hear an example. If someone is offended by speech, I don't think a law should be passed limiting speech in the workplace.

The victim should bring it to the attention of the company. Its obviously not a good business practice. An effectively managed business would not stand for these kind of employee relations. If its not an effectively managed company, maybe high turnover would either drive it out of business, or force it to adopt a different sexual harassment policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

In what "context" is it acceptable to assume that the victim shares responsibility for being harassed on the job, and that the solution is to quit?

I believe I addressed the context in which I would find it acceptable. If you don't agree, you'll just have to find it "unacceptable" and keep it moving.

Have you followed this thread at all? How about other Ron Paul threads on this forum?

Yeah, and I've been here a lot longer than you have.

Watch this!

I agree with Ron Paul about a few things. I think our foreign policy is way too militaristic and there is no way we should be deliberately targeting Americans without a trial. I also believe the War on Drugs is a dangerous and foolhardy thing that leads to incredibly perverse and racist outcomes, and that the number of Americans currently incarcerated is a complete disgrace.

I disagree with Ron Paul about a whole host of other things, from abortion rights to universal health care to taxes to civil rights to whether 95% of the black men in DC are criminals and incredibly fleet of foot. I don't think AIDS sufferers should get no help and I don't think the indigent should receive no medical care aside from charity. I don't think we all need gun to protect us from car jackers, nor do we need to make sure our guns were bought via the classifieds so that they can't be traced to us if we shoot "youths." I don't think GW Bush let 911 happen for his own ends, I believe in vaccination, I think a return to the gold standard is an absolutely idiotic thing to work toward, and I don't celebrate "Hate Whitey Day."

And, unlike Ron Paul, I don't think every candidate up on the stage during the last debate could beat Barack Obama. And he's one of the losers who can't.

"Hey Susan, I think you are a good candidate for that supervisor position. Why don't we go to Vegas for the weekend and talk about it?"

"No, thank you anyway Mr. Itself"

If Susan finds this invitation to be offensive, she is unhappy with her working conditions and should express her dissatisfaction with the proper people in her company. If the conditions do not improve, she can either find work in more hospitable conditions, or put up with these types of invitations.

I agree with Ron Paul about a few things. I think our foreign policy is way too militaristic and there is no way we should be deliberately targeting Americans without a trial. I also believe the War on Drugs is a dangerous and foolhardy thing that leads to incredibly perverse and racist outcomes, and that the number of Americans currently incarcerated is a complete disgrace.

I disagree with Ron Paul about a whole host of other things, from abortion rights to universal health care to taxes to civil rights to whether 95% of the black men in DC are criminals and incredibly fleet of foot. I don't think AIDS sufferers should get no help and I don't think the indigent should receive no medical care aside from charity. I don't think we all need gun to protect us from car jackers, nor do we need to make sure our guns were bought via the classifieds so that they can't be traced to us if we shoot "youths." I don't think GW Bush let 911 happen for his own ends, I believe in vaccination, I think a return to the gold standard is an absolutely idiotic thing to work toward, and I don't celebrate "Hate Whitey Day."

And, unlike Ron Paul, I don't think every candidate up on the stage during the last debate could beat Barack Obama. And he's one of the losers who can't.

I don't think any of the candidates can beat Obama. He is going to have an opponent though. I, for one, would like that opponent to be able to challenge the president on the issues I find important.

I don't think any of the candidates can beat Obama. He is going to have an opponent though. I, for one, would like that opponent to be able to challenge the president on the issues I find important.

And that's fine. Ideal even. But don't convince yourself that it means that people who are planning on voting for Obama are blind to hi flaws or to the good things that Ron Paul says just because they don't consider the good things Paul says as important as the bad things (or as important as you do). That's the mistake in the article you linked to.

I mean, I read a couple of days ago that David Duke is against the War on Drugs. David Duke agrees with me on something! I agree with David Duke on something! I can admit that we agree on something without having any desire whatsoever to vote for David Duke. (It does give me the desire to take a shower, though.)

Ron Paul isn't as loathsome as David Duke and I agree with him on more, but just agreeing on a handful of items doesn't make someone's ideology acceptable. Sure, Paul is better than Duke (and Bachmann and Perry and Santorum), but that doesn't mean he's someone I would ever vote for because I find the majority of his espoused ideas despicable.

But a Paul presidency would be a nightmare -- that is assuming he could actually accomplish what he wants to. Which is doubtful, because even most Republican find him kinda scary.

He's never going to accomplish what he wants to, that's why he'd make a good President. He is fighting specifically against what he considers the illegal seizure of powers by the federal government. This means that the politicians that want to retain those powers will fight against him, and it means that Ron Paul is not going to empower them by illegally seizing the power that would be necessary to force his worst ideas through.

It comes down to this: Ron Paul is the only running candidate I'm aware of who is against the US government kidnapping and murdering brown people without even bothering to justify the act with a trial, and he's got the balls to call them out on it. I'd love it if there was another candidate like that who didn't have Paul's baggage, but there isn't.

I disagree with Ron Paul about a whole host of other things, from abortion rights to universal health care to taxes to civil rights to whether 95% of the black men in DC are criminals and incredibly fleet of foot. I don't think AIDS sufferers should get no help and I don't think the indigent should receive no medical care aside from charity. I don't think we all need gun to protect us from car jackers, nor do we need to make sure our guns were bought via the classifieds so that they can't be traced to us if we shoot "youths." I don't think GW Bush let 911 happen for his own ends, I believe in vaccination, I think a return to the gold standard is an absolutely idiotic thing to work toward, and I don't celebrate "Hate Whitey Day."

Huh?!

But you took Ron Paul political positions from newsletters that were debunked already? And then pile on some more.

I guess then you ascribe Jeremiah Wright's sermons to Obama? Probably not, eh? You're probably a bit smarter than that.

This discussion has become pretty ridiculous.

I hope Obama loses ONLY because he is supported by people like this and that people like this will turn independents to approach elections as "vote Obama out".

But you took Ron Paul political positions from newsletters that were debunked already? And then pile on some more.

Debunked? No. He either wrote them or had them ghost-written and either way they are his.

And the majority of what I commented on wasn't from the newsletters in any case. Repeal of Roe v. Wade, return to gold standard, only charity for the indigent, no mandatory vaccination, 911 trutherism, etc. Couple that with his obvious and blatant lies about the newsletters and you've got a little twerp of a man who should be mocked and utterly rejected.

But you took Ron Paul political positions from newsletters that were debunked already?

Are you making this up as you go along or something?
Not only were they not "debunked", but as you damn well know if you've read this thread (or pretty much any other on this subject) Ron Paul explicitly endorsed their contents, their contents were published under his aegis, name, and sponsorship, and he didn't use his newsletter to publish an apology or retraction to what it had published previously.

What purpose do you think your brand of bullshit serves? The more people dig into Paul, the more it's clear that he's a racist, conspiracy nut, anti-science, anti-environment, anti-civil rights, etc... lunatic. Compared to the actual record, some online babble about "guilt by association" will accomplish what, exactly? If he actually gets the nod the news media will go berserk reporting on Paul's own words and actions, and this will be the defense from the Paulian Faithful?

"Sure, you've got Paul's own words, actions and beliefs to critique... but aren't you ashamed of that guilt by association approach where you try to pin his own words, actions and beliefs on him? Well, aren't you???"

"Sure, you've got Paul's own words, actions and beliefs to critique... but aren't you ashamed of that guilt by association approach where you try to pin his own words, actions and beliefs on him? Well, aren't you???"

I actually cry myself to sleep each night in shame for believing the Ron Paul's association with Ron Paul somehow tarnishes him.

But you took Ron Paul political positions from newsletters that were debunked already? And then pile on some more.

I guess then you ascribe Jeremiah Wright's sermons to Obama? Probably not, eh? You're probably a bit smarter than that.

Well since we have video of Rev. Wright delivering his sermons himself, and since nobody's ever claimed that Obama wrote the sermons, no. And anyway I didn't have a huge problem with Wright's sermons, I think the guy had a point. But all we have 'debunking' Ron Paul's newsletter is that he says he didn't write it. That's it. We know it was published under his name. We know he made a lot of money off of it. But he says he didn't write it and so now it's debunked? Yeah, well, Larry Craig just has a wide stance in the bathroom. After all, he said so.

It doesn't even matter that much to me anyway, there are enough things that we can be sure Ron Paul has said that would keep me from ever voting for him. I do think Ron Paul has some really, really good points. He brings up issues and stands up for some very important things that nobody else, including Obama, is doing. He deserves credit for that, but that doesn't mean he's not accountable for his awful opinions as well. His supporters are excusing things that most of the country simply won't.

Even though I dislike use of "ghostwriter" which strongly suggests Ron Paul talked to Rockwell and then Rockwell only skill was writing it in proper sentences. It is very suggestive. So, for a person who has doubts and who would like separate proof of a systematic racist views I even posted a challenge in this post describing how would one go about proving that Ron if not original author at least harbors same racist opinions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

He claims he did not write it and I hope we'll all agree it is very difficulty to prove it one way or the other. Therefore, reasonable person would look into other ways of proving or disproving it. Or, at least, building a case for it. So, as much as I can see I simply cannot provide any other form of behaviour or tendencies that could be even remotely construed as racist. What I'm saying is that a person of that mindset would slip so to speak, at last once, somewhere to someone and that someone would come forward and speak of it with credibility. There's none.

Again, a person of such a inflamatory language would probably make a speech of similar nature or in his actions as medical doctor he would have a pattern of avoiding or rejecting minorities. But, there is no such cite. Of course, hear-say does not count, even if it appears in a magazine of such a pretentious name: reason. Going back to that reason article:

Quote:

Originally Posted by reason

Cato Institute President Ed Crane told reason he recalls a conversation from some time in the late 1980s in which Paul claimed that his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for The Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto until it folded in 2001.

Can you follow this and not laugh He recalls a conversation from late 1980s...?!

Indeed we are. But once we got done with the Paulian Defense League, we can discuss Paul's actual statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newcomer

how would one go about proving that Ron if not original author at least harbors same racist opinions

In that very article it points out that Paul, himself, said that he supported the racist stuff in his newsletter after he was challenged on it by a democrat he was running against. Funny how you missed that bit.
And all of this was explained to you, with a cite and a quote, in a post right after your nonsensical and fallacious "debunking". Funny how you missed that too.

Even though I dislike use of "ghostwriter" which strongly suggests Ron Paul talked to Rockwell and then Rockwell only skill was writing it in proper sentences. It is very suggestive. So, for a person who has doubts and who would like separate proof of a systematic racist views I even posted a challenge in this post describing how would one go about proving that Ron if not original author at least harbors same racist opinions:

I've actually had PR people write quotes for me to go into press releases. I've also written presentations for an exec two levels up. In both those cases the people whose name is on the quote read the damn quote. Now, in the Paul case, this was not a one-time thing. If it happened once perhaps I'd agree it is possible that he missed it. But if it was continuing, either no one on his staff ever read what went out under his name or none of them ever thought to say, "Ron, this is some racist crap here. Maybe we had better stop it." Perhaps it is not a good thing to support a candidate who surrounds himself with racists or people too dumb to recognize racism when it hits them over the head with a stick.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now